2013 (9) TMI 1098

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r section 201(1) / 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ―the Act‖) for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The only issue involved in the present appeal preferred by the Revenue is in respect of non-deduction of TDS and levy of interest under section 201(1) / 201(1A) on the ground that the assessee has not complied with the provisions of section 194-I. To challenge this issue, the Revenue has taken as many as 13 grounds with various sub-grounds, which are argumentative in nature and not in accordance with the prescribed in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1962. However, we are disposing off the appeal based on the issues involved and challenged before us. 3. At the out set, the learned Counsel, Mr. J.D. Mistry, o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Page-4 to 46 of the appellate order. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), after appreciating the written submissions and also that the assessee's facts are similar to the decision of the Tribunal in Shree Naman Developers Ltd. deleted the said demand after observing and holding as under:- "5.10 In the present case, the written submission furnished by the appellant and the order passed by the AO has been considered by me. It is seen that the facts in the case of the appellant are similar to the facts in the case of Shree Naman Developers Ltd. and other cases cited in para 5.6 above. Hence, it is evident that the premium of Rs. 4.70 crores approximately in respect of the leased plot, paid by the appellant for allotment of additional ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to 691/Mum/2012 by following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench rendered jo. the case of M/s Wadhwa & Associates Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated 3-7-2013 assed in ITA No. 695/Mum/2012. In the case of M/s Wadhwa & Associates Realtors Pvt. L d. (supra), a similar issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee for the following reasons given in para 9 to 10 of its order dated 3-7-2013 (supra) - "9. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the order of the lower authorities and the material evidence brought on record in the form of paper Book and the judicial decisions relied upon by the rival parties. The entire grievance revolves around the premium paid by the assessee to M/s. MMRDA Ltd. for the leasehold....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee became entitled for additional FSI and has further acquired/purchased the additional built up area for construction of additional area on the aforesaid plot. Thus the assessee has made payment to MMRD under Development Control for acquiring leasehold land and additional built up area. The decisions of the Tribunal in the case of M/ s. National Stock Exchange (supra) and Mulcund Ltd (supra) have been well discussed by the Ld. CIT(A) is his order. The decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Khimline Pumps Ltd. (supra) squarely and directly apply on the facts of the case wherein the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that payment for acquiring leasehold land is a capital expenditure. Considering the entir....